- (1.) Petitioner, Navjeevan Bal Vidhya Mandir Shashtri received a letter dated 14.7.2015, wherein it was stipulated that penalty be deposited on or before 15.7.2015.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient time was not granted to deposit the penalty. However, it is contended that the penalty was paid after delay of seven days on 22.7.2015 by way of demand draft, however, State Government, since was of the opinion that delay had occurred to deposit the fee, had returned the draft.
(3.) The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bhartiya Mahavidhlaya, Dabala vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11748/2015] decided on 11.9.2015. The order passed in the case of Bhartiya Mahavidhlaya, Dabala reads as under:- "Bhartiya Mahavidhlaya, Dabala, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the impugned order dated 21.7.2015 (Annx.8) alongwith the impugned letter dated 23.7.2015 (Annx.9) be quashed qua the petitioner and a further prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner institution for running B.A. Course for the academic year 2014-15 and the respondents should not proceed against the petitioner college for late deposit of the penalty. In the present writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner college was established in the year 2009 and the said college having created infrastructure is imparting education to the students in Bachelor of Arts studies. It is further stated that the State of Rajasthan had granted no objection certificate in the year 2009 and have been renewing it on year to year basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that later, the State of Rajasthan had prescribed certain guidelines for creating necessary infrastructure and certain deficiencies were found in the petitioner college and the college was asked to cure the deficiencies. To cut the long controversy short, it is to be noted that on 14.7.2015 Annexure-5 was issued by the respondent No.2, Commissioner, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur wherein it was stated that those institutions who have completed five years but are running college for a period less than eight years have to deposit Rs.1,41,000/- towards penalty for not complying with the guidelines laid by the State of Rajasthan so far infrastructure is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a communication dated 14.7.2015 was received by the petitioner college on 15.7.2015 in the morning and on the said day itself the college filled up e-challan for Rs.1,41,000/-, but since server was down, the amount was deposited in the treasury on the next day 16.07.2015 under the head of Government of Rajasthan, College Education Department. To support this contention, learned counsel has attached with the present petition e-challan Annexure-6 to depict that e-challan was prepared on 15.7.2015 but amount was deposited on 16.07.2015. It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner had deposited the amount within two days from the issuance of the letter Annexure-6. However, Shri Mridul Goswami learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that even though letter was issued on 14.7.2015, it was earlier uploaded on the website. Therefore, it was incumbent for the petitioner to download the same from the website of the department immediately. Since the college had deposited the penalty after a delay of one day, vide Annexure-8 recognition of the petitioner college was annulled and letter Annexure-9 was issued on 23.7.2015 by the Department. In the said letter it is stated that since the last date of deposit of the penalty was 15.7.2015 and the amount has been deposited by the college on 16.7.2015, thus, there is a delay on the part of the college, hence recognition is withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the students of the college had already appeared in the examination and their result has been withheld by the University on the ground that recognition has been withdrawn. To educate residents of the State of Rajasthan is a noble and pious duty and the State is committed to promote education. Therefore, for achieving this laudable goal, State cannot stand on hyper technicalities to deny the education to the students. Admittedly, petitioner college is situated in a remote rural area. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that seldom electricity is available and therefore, server most of the time is down and not operational. It is further submitted by the counsel that the letter (Annexure-5) was issued on 14.7.2015 and college has been called upon to deposit the fee on or before 15.7.2015. Learned counsel submits that the letter dated 14.7.2015 has been issued at Jaipur and it is expected by the State that the same will be delivered to the college on the next day. Learned counsel further submits that he had prepared e-challan on 15.7.2015, since the server was down, therefore amount could not be transferred and the fee was deposited on 16.7.2015. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. To call upon the college that in pursuance of letter dated 14.07.2015 Annexure-5 amount be deposited within one day i.e. on or before 15.07.2015 is most unreasonable demand. A sufficient time ought to have been afforded to the college. The contention of the counsel for the respondent that since letter raising demand was uploaded earlier, petitioner was bound to pay the amount in pursuance of uploading of the letter on website is not tenable. Merely because the letter was uploaded on the website, and the petitioner college cannot be unnecessarily put to harassment for not having browsed the website. Letter was sent on 14.7.2015 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount by 15.7.2015. Since the college deposited the amount on 16.07.2015, on the next day of the stipulated date, the career of the students cannot be put to jeopardy. Hence, operation of Annexure-8 and Annexure-9 qua the petitioner so far they make petitioner college ineligible on account of delay to deposit the amount of penalty is set aside and the present petition is allowed. The State Government is directed to issue 'no objection certificate' to the petitioner college for the academic session 2014-15 forthwith.";